House committee’s NDAA authorizes more money for Ukraine, thwarts troop reductions in Europe

WASHINGTON — The House Armed Services Committee’s version of the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill adheres to the $848 billion topline requested by the Pentagon, with few major changes to the sums requested for big-ticket items like ships, aircraft and vehicles.

One notable exception: The inclusion of $300 million for Ukraine, with the security assistance available at the president’s discretion.

The provision — part of a larger section on Europe — authorizes $300 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative “contingent on a presidential determination that it serves the U.S. national interest,” extending the initiative without binding the Trump administration’s hands to delegate additional funding for Ukraine.

The funding would be included in a larger pot of money for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, states the bill, which was obtained by Breaking Defense. Politico was the first to report on the proposed legislation. (President Donald Trump said Monday that US must send additional military aid to Ukraine, days after reports said some arms transfers had been halted.)

In additional to the language authorizing additional Ukraine funding, the NDAA also includes numerous oversight mechanisms that would click into place should the administration attempt to shrink the footprint of US forces in Europe, as top US officials have indicated is on the table.

According to the provision, funds authorized by the bill cannot be used to scale back the number of troops deployed to US European Command to less than 76,000 servicemembers unless the defense secretary and EUCOM commander submit a number of requirements, including an explanation of the decision, an assessment of Russian threats to NATO, certifications from both officials indicating that they have consulted with NATO allies, and other analysis documents.

Back home, the cornerstone of HASC’s FY26 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a package of acquisition reform legislation known as the SPEED Act — short for Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery. The SPEED Act provisions center on overhauling the Defense Department’s laborious and time-consuming requirements generation process, and will complement similar acquisition reform legislation set to be released as part of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the bill.

HASC’s version of the NDAA sticks closely to the Pentagon’s own FY26 budget, authorizing the sums requested for most major weapons programs — a departure from a typical year where lawmakers divert funding to bolster high-priority programs.

RELATED: Congress passes Trump’s reconciliation megabill with $150 billion for defense.

For example, the chairman’s mark keeps funding steady to purchase a total of 47 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters across the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, but adds $500 million for F-35 spares across the three services and decreases F-35 modernization accounts by $200 million due to delays to Block 4.

Other major changes included:

• An added $600 million to continue developing prototypes for the Air Force’s E-7 Wedgetail plane, which was cancelled in the FY26 budget
• A $475 million boost for the Space Force’s Next-Gen OPIR Polar program
• A $400 million increase for the Air Force’s next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile program, known as Sentinel or the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent
• A $339 million boost for the Space Force’s GPS III follow on program
• An additional $300 million for two C-40 executive transport planes for the Air Force
• A $300 million decrease in funding for KC-46 procurement, with the legislation citing a “program delay”
• An extra $225 million to continue development of the Navy’s follow on to the Virginia-class attack submarine, known as SSN-X
• An additional $100 million for Army UH-60 Black Hawk modernization
• An additional $90 million for the Army to procure three more remanufactured AH-64E Apaches
• An additional $20 million to develop the Navy’s next generation destroyer, known as DDG-X

Although the House and Senate armed services committees can authorize changes to the Pentagon budget, the purse strings are held by the appropriations committees. House appropriators’ version of the FY26 defense spending bill is slated to move through the Rules Committee this evening, where committee members will determine which amendments will be debated as the bill comes to the floor, likely next week.

Golden Dome Demands And Other Policy Changes

Beyond the funding recommendations, the bill proposes a laundry list of policy requirements affecting key weapons systems.

The NDAA requires the department to submit to a plan for the Golden Dome missile shield as well as consolidated budget materials that would summarize spending for the project, which will likely involve existing and new systems across the US military.

That report should contain a description of the “next-generation air and missile defense architecture, including the identification of each capability, program, and project considered to be part of such architecture; [and] a preliminary description of, cost estimate for, and schedule to achieve initial operational capability and full operational capability.” The language stipulates that annual updates to the plan be sent to Congress through FY30.

For the F-35, the bill includes language that would compel the department to ensure that “sufficient wartime spares, support equipment and depot level capabilities” are available for at least 90 days “in the most stressing operational plan.” It would also force the defense secretary to ensure that F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin has validated all the information needed for the Defense Department to conduct an audit, as well as instating reports on F-35 sustainment.

In terms of nuclear capabilities, the bill includes a number of provisions aimed at ensuring the readiness of the existing Minuteman III fleet in the wake of delays with Sentinel, its replacement. It requires the Air Force to submit an annual strategy on Minuteman III sustainment, including a list of sustainment challenges, their potential impact on performance, and any mitigating steps that can prolong the life of the system.

The bill also prohibits the reduction of the ICBM force below 400 missiles, as well as blocking any attempt to lower the level of responsiveness of the nation’s current ICBM fleet.

For the Navy, the HASC’s NDAA includes multiple contractual authorities to enable the efficient procurement of ships, including language permitting the service to contract for two Ford-class aircraft and up to five Columbia-class submarines, with the ability to use incremental funding to purchase those vessels.

The bill also requires the Navy to create and implement an investment strategy for the maritime industrial base to ameliorate cost and schedule problems for shipbuilding programs. That strategy should also involve data collection and consider the use of artificial intelligence to monitor shipbuilders’ supply chains, the bill states.

The NDAA also makes several major demands of the Air Force’s tanker and cargo aircraft inventory. First, it prohibits the service from accepting KC-46 deliveries until the defense secretary certifies that the department is implementing a plan to correct all of the Category 1 deficiencies associated with the Boeing-made plane. The provision requires that the corrective action plan, as well as the funding and projected schedules associated with the plan, be submitted to the congressional defense committees.

The bill mandates that the Air Force maintain at least 504 refueling tankers, keep its retired KC-10s in flyable condition, and restricts KC-135 retirements from the reserves. It also requires the Air Force to submit a plan for recapitalizing its executive aircraft fleet.